Talk:Ecce Homo (García Martínez and Giménez)

== This article should include a picture of the botched restoration results. It's relevant to the notoriety of the painting. == 64.114.25.147 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not entirely the case that Cecilia Gimenez is seeking profits, and that she is asking for money from the Church

According to this article,

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765605805/Disfigured-Spain-fresco-rides-global-fame.html

she is looking into the legal matter of what may be the exploitation of her own work (see the "ship of theseus" reference, below). She's not going after the church for money. The wikipediat article, as written now, paints (ahem) her in a less than flattering light than this article would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paustin (talk • contribs) 11:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten that paragraph accordingly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The painting now resembles Alice the Goon from the Popeye cartoons

I do not know if Wikipedia will accept suggestions as to what the messed up painting looks like, but, the figure of Jesus now looks almost identical to Alice the Goon, created by E. C. Segar, that was visualized in the Popeye cartoons. Go to Google.com images and look up Alice the Goon Popeye. Good luck restoring it to it's original image. That would require a real miracle. 204.80.61.133 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You really don't think of this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZaspo_g4BU --Razionale (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

now #1 tourist attraction of Borja, Spain

Hundreds of people a day are traveling to Borja to view the new Ecce Homo. Over 18,000 people have signed a petition requesting the modern Ecce Homo not be removed. Many of these visiting supporters are leaving flowers at the home of the amateur restorer. If this attention and popularity persists much longer restoration is likely to become impossible as the Church and the town need the tourist income. For these reasons I think this article should not be deleted at this time. Perhaps it will become a permanet tourist attraction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.154.171 (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD message

I removed the AfD message since there was actually no debate going on about deletion and I couldn't find a reason for there to be one. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Title change?

The version by Elías García Martínez isn't what's attracting attention. Cecilia Giménez is the notable artist here. It's definitely too early to say what will be established as the normal term for this artwork, but in due course we should probably rename this article. Either to "Ecce Mono", or replace Elías García Martínez with Cecilia Giménez. Ideas? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but it's almost kind of a 'Ship of Theseus' situation. Giménez's work was intended to be a restoration of Martínez's original, not a new work in and of itself (da Vinci's 'The Last Supper' has been restored several times yet we still consider it to be a work by da Vinci, despite other artists having laid paint to it). Is this an entirely new work, or an admittedly very bad restoration of the original? To be fair, the original work was apparently not notable enough to have a wiki page of it's own. As far as deletion goes, I would say the work is _definitely_ notable enough now to have a page, so I would say the AfD tag should go. Jimduchek (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Context

I'm missing information about the context. Was Giménez commissioned by the church to do the restoration (and if so, why did she do such a bad job/why did the church do such a bad job in picking a restorationist?) or did she act on her own initiative in an honest attempt to "help"? How did the church react after they knew about the result? When exactly did all this happen (the article only states the date of the rising internet phenomenon, but gives no dates for the actual events)? etc. --::Slomox:: >< 15:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. Her motives are not identified. When the story first broke, the reports were that she had informed the parish priest of her intentions and he did not object. He was not aware, however, that she had no training. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Irony

I'm sure mere coincidences are not notable enough to go into this article... However this incident is quite reminiscent of what happened to the painting in the movie Bean, and the theme to the Mr. Bean TV show started by singing "Ecce homo qui est faba". 71.82.152.28 11:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.152.28 (talk)

Age of Ecce Homo

This article currently gives no date when the Ecco Homo was painted in the church. So I googled to find the year Martinez painted the fresco and came up with 2 possible answers. The Guardian says the work dates from the 19th century. [1] Fox News gives the year as 1930. [2] What should finally be written in the article's History section regarding this important detail? - Gilliam (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you have two sources of roughly equal reliability that claim different things, we should document both dates and note the discrepancy. Elizium23 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The town's official page, http://www.borja.es/ayuntamiento/descarga-impresos/doc_download/191-informe-ecce-homo, says "about the year 1930". It's an official report and personally I'd suggest sticking with that. 1930 seems to be shortly before the death of the artist who however is often described as being "19th century"; this may account for its attribution to that period. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez)

Hello, hello. User:Walter Görlitz removed my link to Vandalism of art from Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez). I thought it was very similar to the topic because it is described like this: "The object is usually exhibited in public, becomes damaged as a result of the act, and remains in place right after the act. This may distinguish it from art destruction and iconoclasm, where it may be wholly destroyed and removed, and art theft, or looting." I put it into "see also" because the act was not necessarily intentional vandalism, which I do not want to claim it was.--Razionale (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I also considered Accidental damage of art but thought this was less related. She knew it was art and the examples are very different. --Razionale (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Perhaps we can just add both?--Razionale (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The act was not vandalism. It was a failed attempt at restoration. The intent of the perpetrator is essential, not our interpretation of the end result. The accidental damage of art article is more appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Accidental damage of art article better? Done.--Razionale (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"2012 Works?

Can this be put under the category "2012 works" or "2012 paintings", because, face it, it might as well be a whole new painting. It looks like something you would find at MoMA, or the Tate Modern. 50.36.81.177 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Only with a reliable source that it was a new work and not a botched restoration. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tongue in cheek

It really doesn't matter that much whether we include the phrase, but from the source I find: "such is the furor over the mishap that Guardian art critic Jonathan Jones suggested today, tongue firmly in cheek, that Borja's amateur art restorer be hired by other localities with worthy artworks that needed some international attention. It has to be mentioned, however, that the updated monkey-like Christ has a freakish new power all its own, and may be its own kind of metaphor for modern man. "

The suggestion that Cecilia be employed to restore other art works is indeed ironic. The more serious comments on interpretation of the Ecce Mono are not. I'll leave it a day or two and, if there are no more comments, remove the phrase from its present inappropriate location. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all inappropriate, and I'll be happy to take this to WP:THIRD opinion if you wish to dispute it. The only source that vaguely suggests a "serious" interpretation is the Forbes article, though more in terms of sociology and faith than artistic merit (the Forbes article is frank that this "work" and other works mentioned are "inept" and "amateur."

It's entirely misleading and implying that Wikipedia is "in on the joke, wink wink" to suggest there is serious artistic merit to Martinenz's "restoration." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This image illuminates contrasts: a Church-approved, skilfully-reproduced, very dull image, tediously and academically supporting the human nature of the divine and the divine creation of humanity, has been replaced by a non-approved, crass, but very modernistic and very funny image, clumsily-produced, an unintentional parody of the original, connecting sacred humanity with nonhuman ancestors and implicitly questioning the very nature of divinity in general and the Catholic Christian version in particular. Nobody is suggesting that Señora Cecilia has produced a work of artistic genius or even skill, nor that she intended any of the above, but in its specific circumstances and surroundings, her work does amount to significant and serious art. I note that 23K plus people have signed a petition saying so. To imply otherwise, in Wikipedia's voice, is not good practice. At best, used in its weaker sense that the commentator is trying not to laugh, the "tongue-in-cheek" comment is harmless but un-necessary editorializing from us. Please get all the opinions you like, but I hope you decide to remove the phrase. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As I've already noted, the phrase "tongue in cheek" is directly from your source, whereas your description above is your interpretation. As far as the petition goes, it's impossible to know how many of the signers did so as a lark and how many were serious. I added to the article a comment from the second source that conveys gist of that article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The term is, at best, un-necessary editorializing and at worst directly contradicting RS, and it should go. It's also a trivial issue and I shan't argue the point any further. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Ecce Homo

I see you changed a reference from "muscular atrophy" to "muscular dystrophy". I also see you are an MD so I'll defer doing the research myself, but the source says "muscular atrophy". And again, I'll defer doing research, but Wikipedia has separate articles for the two. Is it really proper to change atrophy to dystrophy when the source says atrophy? Marteau (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, and you're right. Muscular atrophy of course isn't a condition, whereas muscular dystrophy is a serious genetic disorder, and I don't doubt that "atrophy" is a minor error by the source, so I changed it. I've found another source that does say dystrophy, and inserted it; I hope that solves the problem. Thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Creationist

What creationist views of the Church? Since I am Catholic, and I believe in Theistic Evolution as well as the Big Bang Theory and indeed, to the best of my knowledge, so have the last few Popes, I would like to know why this is included in the article. I know very few Catholics that would agree with the Fundamentalist Protestant Views of creation, and creationism certainly isn't the teaching of the Church, so why is there nothing in this article that points this out? Adam (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion is not official doctrine though. See http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution, http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.php and Catholic Church and evolution. Officially, "all that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God." Sounds like creation to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion, Walter Görlitz, may, or may not be, highly questionable, but at least one of your sources is, and, as you put it "not official doctrine": Catholic Bridge is in no way a reliable source explaining or expounding Catholic doctrine. It is merely the interpretations of an individual Catholic, seemingly geared towards showing a face acceptable to, particularly, American Evangelical Christians, as his musical career is conducted predominantly among them.

I am not a Catholic (or Christian) myself, but your other, actually reliable, source Adam and Eve and Evolution explains their position:

"...the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. ... It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul." (my emphasis)

Granted, not very science-y, with the whole God-given soul and guidance thing, but neither is it a belief in, nor requirement to subscribe to, "Creationism". (If that is understood as humans - and indeed all organisms - arising separately, each species in its final, and only, form).

That quotation you give, taken on its own, does sound like Creationism indeed, but in context of

" In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces." [|Catholic Church and evolution]

sounds a little less like Creationism and, at most, more like evolutionary creation. 220.237.11.191 (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the usual version of theistic evolution does include special arrangements for the creation of a soul; your opinions may vary of course. The artwork can be taken - and seems to be taken by the authors whom we quote - as a comment on the relationship specifically between man and nonhuman primates. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• It is entirely wrong to describe the CC's views as "creationist", but there may be 2,000 idiots in Spain who are unaware of this, or signed the petition as a joke (which it clearly was), or the Spanish may not mean quite the same as the English. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It would seem as though this thread has been rendered moot. The paragraph is no longer verifiable and has been removed. Elizium23 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/es/peticiones/ayuntamiento-de-borja-zaragoza-mantenimiento-de-la-nueva-versi%C3%B3n-del-ecce-homo-de-borja

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Done paragraph with reference link removed from article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)